Hi Charlie!

Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 01.08.2013, 11:46 Uhr, schrieb yuppie <y.2...@wcm-solutions.de>:
>> First a few words about names: CMF uses sometimes 'member area' and
>> sometimes 'home folder'. IMembershipTool has 'getHomeFolder' and
>> 'getHomeUrl' methods as well as 'createMemberArea' and
>> 'deleteMemberArea' methods. If there is a difference between the two
>> names, 'home folder' is just the folder and 'member area' the folder
>> including all subobjects. In my proposal I proposed to add portal types
>> named 'Members' and 'MemberArea', but I now changed this to 'Members
>> Folder' and 'Home Folder'. Hope that's ok.
> I think this is clearer: users are interested in their own or others
> (home) folder. The Members Folder is really only of interest to admins.
> Do the new types have any special functions or attributes? Or are they
> purely semantic? You mention a proposal - did that go to the list and I
> missed it? Or did you put something up on launchpad?

I didn't write a full proposal. Just mentioned the planed changes in
this mail:

- 'Home Folder' is a special folder type that uses the normal Portal
Folder class, but a different factory that replaces parts of the
old createMemberArea() code.

- 'Members Folder' is a special folder type that uses the normal Portal
Folder class, but limits sub-items to 'Home Folder' objects and has a
special default view that replaces the 'index_html' DTML Method
currently added to the members folder.

>> 'createMemberArea' now uses separate factories for creating member
>> areas. This allows to use the same method in CMFCore and CMFDefault. The
>> MembershipTool in CMFDefault no longer has a customized version of
>> 'createMemberArea'.
> I'm not sure what the separate factories are for "member areas and…"?
> But it certainly makes sense to remove a customisation in CMFDefault.

I meant the actual factories are now separated from the rest of the
createMemberArea code. The new factories implementing
zope.component.interfaces.IFactory are now looked up and used by

> The only thing I have here is that changes should probably come in a new
> release. I think we've (well, you've) done most of the work for moving
> from TTW and we can look to faster releases than in the past because of
> the improved test coverage.

No objections. I'd just like to do some small polishing before we create
2.3 branches.



Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to